Weird Science makes friends with atheists to keep them happy

But it sticks everyone in uncomfortable chairs so they drive safely.

Christians have happy tweets, atheists think too much. Social networking services allow behavioral questions to be examined using a large subject population. This one is no different, involving 16,000 Twitter users. The group was split in two based on simple criteria: do you follow one of a list of famous Christian figures, or do you follow someone from a comparable list of atheists (no word on how many people followed both). The researchers then analyzed the content of the tweets. Christians ended up using terms that suggested an intuitive thinking style and a focus on community; they were also generally happier. In contrast, atheists tended to be more analytic and less focused on social connections. This latter bit is important, as having social connections tends to keep people happier, and the authors think religion can help provide those connections.

Maybe we just need to give investment bankers smaller chairs. When yelling at you to stop slouching, your parents may have emphasized how posture influences how others perceive us. What they probably neglected to mention is that posture also influences how we see ourselves. And the truly weird thing is that this works even if we don't make any conscious choices about our posture.

The researchers set up chairs that either kept their subjects a bit constrained or allowed them to spread out into an expansive posture. Those who ended up with an open posture were more likely to steal money, cheat on a test, or break the law when in a driving simulator. The authors ascribe this to the fact that this sort of posture is generally associated with people being in a position of power. To see if there were any real-world consequences, the authors then turned to the streets of New York City, finding that cars that allowed their drivers to adopt an expansive posture were more likely to be illegally parked.

Fishers being killed by pot farming. No, this is not a story of anglers getting wasted and falling into rivers. Instead, the fishers in question are medium-sized mammals that are relatives of the marten and members of the weasel family. And, as it turns out, pot farming is killing them. It's normal to have problems with wildlife deaths near agricultural regions where the animals come in contact with various pesticides. But in this case, the agriculture came to the animals, as illegal pot farms have sprung up in the national forests of the Sierra Nevada. Survival of female fishers was found to correlate with the number of illegal marijuana farms known to be near their home range, which suggests that the illegal farmers are adopting some of the practices of their more traditional peers.

Acid reflux tied to organ rejection. Acid reflux seems more like a long-term health risk than an immediate crisis, but it apparently can set off a crisis: rejection of transplanted lungs. Bear with me, it'll all make sense. Of all the organs we transplant, lungs suffer rejection the most frequently, and their recipients have the lowest survival among transplant patients. Rejection is the product of an immune response to the transplanted tissue, and that's where acid reflux comes in. Acid reflux irritates the tissue in the esophagus, which creates inflammation, a form of immune response. That may ultimately help draw immune cells to the area, where they begin attacking the lung. Fortunately, there are both surgical and drug treatments for acid reflux, so this finding is mostly identifying a problem that doctors should be aware of.

Now that we've eliminated them, we've found out they were safe. This isn't so much weird as it is ironic. As part of its attempt to heighten airport security, the US rolled out two types of scanners, one of which relied on X-rays. But the scanners were put into use without any detailed safety testing, which raised fears that the estimated exposures used to decide on their safety was overly optimistic. But over time, the TSA has gradually removed the X-ray based scanners until, as of a few months ago, they're no longer in use at our airports. So, now is obviously the perfect time for the American Association of Physicists in Medicine to weigh in on their safety. Turns out they were fine all along, and you probably got a higher dose of radiation while waiting in line for security than you did during the scan itself.

Ars Science Video >

A celebration of Cassini

A celebration of Cassini

A celebration of Cassini

Nearly 20 years ago, the Cassini-Huygens mission was launched and the spacecraft has spent the last 13 years orbiting Saturn. Cassini burned up in Saturn's atmosphere, and left an amazing legacy.

"In contrast, atheists tended to be more analytic and less focused on social connections. This latter bit is important, as having social connections tends to keep people happier, and the authors think religion can help provide those connections."

Yes, those anti-social, anti-community atheists. You don't see any atheist churches or community centers scattered around, even in areas with lots of atheists. It must be their fault. The lack couldn't possibly have anything to do with being excluded from the effective government subsidy for religious institutions (i.e. tax exemption). Not having to pay property taxes has NOTHING to do with helping keep all those church doors open to provide "community" for believers.

In contrast, atheists tended to be more analytic and less focused on social connections

gotta agree with this. I don't practice religion but I know several churchy people and the ones who dont preach hatred, fire and brimstone to the heathens are actually quite pleasant and no different than any other person. I notice that in their church going and gathering up for all the things they do - there is a lot of face-to-face networking / helping each other out and so forth. cant argue with the obvious benefits of any of those things. Yeah, some of them also have a habit of putting a positive spin on pretty much anything - to the point of annoyance (for a cynic) but hey whatever keeps em happy.

I note that the Twitter study received a grant from the John Templeton Foundation, a known religious group. This may or may not influence their results. However, I have been personally involved with a number of similar studies (none pertaining to religion specifically), and reading through their paper I see no overt sources of bias, at least in terms of methodology.

The only real question is whether defining "Christian" as "follows one of these five Christians on Twitter" and "atheist" as "follows one of these five atheists on Twitter" may introduce bias as followers of these individuals are not representative of their groups as a whole. Because the full paper is behind a paywall, I'll list the representative Christian and atheist Twitter personalities here:

Oh, one other thing: apparently thirteen individuals followed someone from both the Christian and atheist lists, and these individuals were removed from the dataset. Since they had 7,557 Christians and 8,716 atheists in total, it's actually a bit odd that only 13 people were in both groups, but I guess not many people actually want to see what people from both groups are saying.

I note that the Twitter study received a grant from the John Templeton Foundation, a known religious group. This may or may not influence their results. However, I have been personally involved with a number of similar studies (none pertaining to religion specifically), and reading through their paper I see no overt sources of bias, at least in terms of methodology.

The only real question is whether defining "Christian" as "follows one of these five Christians on Twitter" and "atheist" as "follows one of these five atheists on Twitter" may introduce bias as followers of these individuals are not representative of their groups as a whole. Because the full paper is behind a paywall, I'll list the representative Christian and atheist Twitter personalities here:

I see one issue right off the bat there. The IQ total of the atheists on that list is probably nearly double that of the Christians. While that plays to stereotypes, it is certainly a larger gap than exists in real life between the populations in question. I don't know the answer to this, but is it possible that they should normalize for the intelligence of the people being "followed" (putting aside the difficulty of doing that)? On the other hand, the reason for that difference is connected to the property they are trying to measure, i.e. the fact that atheists place a higher value on intelligence over other things, which is certainly true, but... caused and effect seems confusing here.

I note that the Twitter study received a grant from the John Templeton Foundation, a known religious group. This may or may not influence their results. However, I have been personally involved with a number of similar studies (none pertaining to religion specifically), and reading through their paper I see no overt sources of bias, at least in terms of methodology.

The only real question is whether defining "Christian" as "follows one of these five Christians on Twitter" and "atheist" as "follows one of these five atheists on Twitter" may introduce bias as followers of these individuals are not representative of their groups as a whole. Because the full paper is behind a paywall, I'll list the representative Christian and atheist Twitter personalities here:

This "study" is flawed, conceptually. Most atheists are not "preachers" of their lack of belief (atheism is frowned upon on certain lines of work, and often on a personal basis), nor identify themselves with personalities who preach atheism, because it is n't the norm to be "converted". Its likely you reach the conclusion to embrace atheism by yourself. Unlike most Christians, who while also aren't preachers, they do openly identify themselves with Christianity.

In contrast, atheists tended to be more analytic and less focused on social connections

gotta agree with this. I don't practice religion but I know several churchy people and the ones who dont preach hatred, fire and brimstone to the heathens are actually quite pleasant and no different than any other person. I notice that in their church going and gathering up for all the things they do - there is a lot of face-to-face networking / helping each other out and so forth. cant argue with the obvious benefits of any of those things. Yeah, some of them also have a habit of putting a positive spin on pretty much anything - to the point of annoyance (for a cynic) but hey whatever keeps em happy.

It's certainly true that atheists in general tend to be a bit Asbergerish and not very socially gifted, but that doesn't mean they don't WANT those social connections. I grew up in religious circles, and the community is tremendous, and was a huge factor in my life. My point is, I didn't CHOOSE to leave the community. I changed my MIND, and their community now excludes and reviles ME.

I would join or help create an atheist community center or "church" in a second, if the deck wasn't stacked against us. Anyone who has seen how church finances work knows most churches would go under in a second if they had to pay all taxes, especially property and income taxes. Here in Silicon Valley, property taxes are monstrous. And school rules are rigged in many places in the country such that a school MUST allow outside religious groups to meet on their property (outside of school hours) if any other group like the Cub Scouts (which as it so happens is also a religious organization, since atheists are not allowed to join) are allowed. But no such law requires them to let atheist groups meet, and you can just bet most of them wouldn't, in many area of this country. So once again... a critical de-facto subsidy that atheists are excluded from.

This "study" is flawed, conceptually. Most atheists are not "preachers" of their lack of belief (atheism is frowned upon on certain lines of work, and often on a personal basis), nor identify themselves with personalities who preach atheism, because it is n't the norm to be "converted". Its likely you reach the conclusion to embrace atheism by yourself. Unlike most Christians, who while also aren't preachers, they do openly identify themselves with Christianity.

Atheists weren't identified as those who "preach" atheism, or even through any sort of overt self-identification or self-description; they were simply defined as "those who like to read what some well-known atheists have to say." Now, if you believe more Christians are going to actively follow Christian tweeters as compared to atheists following atheists tweeters, that's another matter. Personally, I think "see who they're reading" is probably a better choice of metric than most other choices I can think of (although perhaps the specific individuals chosen may be disputed), but if you've got a better way to identify atheists other than polling them directly and hoping their fear of self-identification doesn't foul your results, I'd be interested to hear it.

So did they create a study to prove ignorance is bliss? j/k But realistically, of course the results are going to be like that. Atheists generally become atheist because they are analytical and found inconsistencies in religion. This study doesn't really prove much other Christians express happiness is different ways than atheists.

This "study" is flawed, conceptually. Most atheists are not "preachers" of their lack of belief (atheism is frowned upon on certain lines of work, and often on a personal basis), nor identify themselves with personalities who preach atheism, because it is n't the norm to be "converted". Its likely you reach the conclusion to embrace atheism by yourself. Unlike most Christians, who while also aren't preachers, they do openly identify themselves with Christianity.

Atheists weren't identified as those who "preach" atheism, or even through any sort of overt self-identification or self-description; they were simply defined as "those who like to read what some well-known atheists have to say." Now, if you believe more Christians are going to actively follow Christian tweeters as compared to atheists following atheists tweeters, that's another matter. Personally, I think "see who they're reading" is probably a better choice of metric than most other choices I can think of (although perhaps the specific individuals chosen may be disputed), but if you've got a better way to identify atheists other than polling them directly and hoping their fear of self-identification doesn't foul your results, I'd be interested to hear it.

Anonymous poll for a wide non-random selection of people, so you know who participates, but their input can't be linked to a name. In addition to 'reads' and a much less preachy selection of atheists and pro-Christianity authors (or a randomized selection) used in a control group, using age ranges as well.

So did they create a study to prove ignorance is bliss? j/k But realistically, of course the results are going to be like that. Atheists generally become atheist because they are analytical and found inconsistencies in religion. This study doesn't really prove much other Christians express happiness is different ways than atheists.

I think it goes to show that - regardless of what we (me included) think about the validity of religious belief - the social interaction that they experience is very beneficial.

what about apathetic agnostics? I will hang out with anyone who is not a total douche; don't care if they are religious or not. And I'm certainly old enough to know that its not cool to crap on anyone's beliefs no matter how silly they may seem to me. Ok, I will laugh at a funny joke or clever jab at religion but I dont rub it in their faces.

Ah, here is where the bias against social connections arises: I suspect people who are following Christopher Hitchens on Twitter don't really want to hear that much from other people...

Edited to add: This actually wasn't meant as a dig against Hitchens (whom I rather liked), but rather an allusion to the fact that he had been dead for almost a year when the study concluded (from my cursory skimming of the paper).

Logging in from always lurking just to make a point about the last article (and to try to get away from all the religion/atheism chatter which always seems to get thrown around when something about it pops up)

As a dentist, I expose patients to x-rays daily in my line of work, and have to make the decisions on whether or not it is necessary to acquire certain x-rays or not in light of what information I need. Given the nature of x-rays being ionizing radiation where there is no safe threshold according to the research, I try to minimize its use as much as practical.

From the article itself, basically pointing out the same point:

Quote:

Long-term stochastic effects such as cancer risk are assumed to be directly proportional to received dose with no safe threshold. The cancer risk cannot be estimated with any precision, but is likely to be so low as to be indistinguishable from other background risks. The risk to the individual is thought to be close to zero for a scanned individual, but “at the population level the possible effect cannot be ignored in the assessment of acceptability of the introduction of the security scanners using x-rays for passenger screening.” For perspective, we think it important that this potential increase in risk to the population be considered in light of the presumed increase in risk originating from the much greater radiation exposure from the flight itself.

The way I read this: any x-ray exposure does increase the cancer risk. In this case it is a small effect such that it gets lost in the background noise.

You're likely only going to see effects in the population after doing long-term studies, considering the way cancer works and the small amounts of radiation involved...

So it all comes down to the same decision made by any medical profession in deciding to expose someone to x-rays: is the increased risk of cancer, as miniscule as it may be, worth the information you are trying to acquire?

Logging in from always lurking just to make a point about the last article (and to try to get away from all the religion/atheism chatter which always seems to get thrown around when something about it pops up)

As a dentist, I expose patients to x-rays daily in my line of work, and have to make the decisions on whether or not it is necessary to acquire certain x-rays or not in light of what information I need. Given the nature of x-rays being ionizing radiation where there is <b>no safe threshold</b> according to the research, I try to minimize its use as much as practical.

From the article itself, basically pointing out the same point:

Quote:

Long-term stochastic effects such as cancer risk are assumed to be directly proportional to received dose with no safe threshold. The cancer risk cannot be estimated with any precision, but is likely to be so low as to be indistinguishable from other background risks. The risk to the individual is thought to be close to zero for a scanned individual, but “at the population level the possible effect cannot be ignored in the assessment of acceptability of the introduction of the security scanners using x-rays for passenger screening.” For perspective, we think it important that this potential increase in risk to the population be considered in light of the presumed increase in risk originating from the much greater radiation exposure from the flight itself.

The way I read this: any x-ray exposure does increase the cancer risk. In this case it is a small effect such that it gets lost in the background noise.

You're likely only going to see effects in the population after doing long-term studies, considering the way cancer works and the small amounts of radiation involved...

So it all comes down to the same decision made by any medical profession in deciding to expose someone to x-rays: is the increased risk of cancer, as minuscule as it may be, worth the information you are trying to acquire?

sometimes I worry especially after so many years of going to the dentist - that I have had too many x-rays. Not so much that I refuse the x-ray though. If anything the paper reassures me a bit. I think my general lifestyle is a greater cancer risk.

Ah, here is where the bias against social connections arises: I suspect people who are following Christopher Hitchens on Twitter don't really want to hear that much from other people...

Hitchens lived for the debate and exchange of views. He was anything but a misanthrope, whatever the popular misconceptions of him might be. Conversing with Christians was always in important to him; he hated the thought of being surrounded only by sycophants and admirers. From everything I've read he was a hard man not to like, whatever you thought of his views. Many Christians were saddened by his death.

Also. If the twitter-study is accurate in saying that atheist are less involved with the community, it proves what everyone already knows; we live in an increasingly atomized society and atheist are unlikely to be embedded in the traditional community structures build around... wait for it... Christianity.

So it all comes down to the same decision made by any medical profession in deciding to expose someone to x-rays: is the increased risk of cancer, as miniscule as it may be, worth the information you are trying to acquire?

Your quote from the article answers that question isn't? Yes, the tiny doses worths it

Oh, and fishers are @$$HOLES and I have absolutely no sympathy for them. Growing pot and killing fishers at the same time? Seems like a win-win scenario to me.

Edit: To the downvoters, you've clearly never lost a pet or a coop full of chickens to a fisher cat. They're not like foxes, which will steal a single chicken and leave...they'll just kill all of the birds and leave their headless corpses. So yeah, I really can't feel any sympathy for them.

sometimes I worry especially after so many years of going to the dentist - that I have had too many x-rays. Not so much that I refuse the x-ray though. If anything the paper reassures me a bit. I think my general lifestyle is a greater cancer risk.

These are back-of-the-napkin calculations and not experimentally acquired numbers, so take these with a grain of salt, but to give an idea of the scale... it works out to be about... 0.00003% increased incidence of cancer per common intraoral x-ray?

So it all comes down to the same decision made by any medical profession in deciding to expose someone to x-rays: is the increased risk of cancer, as miniscule as it may be, worth the information you are trying to acquire?

Your quote from the article answers that question isn't? Yes, the tiny doses worths it

The article is typically vague, as most statements are especially when the research is so new:

My personal opinion: Given the exposure numbers are so low (in comparison to the dosages used for medical imaging), the effect of these is most likely quite negligible. However, given that there are other options which do not use ionizing radiation such as millimeter wave, I'm a little baffled at why the use of x-rays was an option to begin with, considering all the scrutiny that is involved with their use in my profession...

I just briefly searched the PDF and couldn't find the word "maintenance." I suspect the safety level very much depends on how well these machines are maintained. Do I trust the TSA to adhere to the same strict maintenance regime as is the norm in hospitals and, I'd imagine, doctor's offices? These machines are used hundreds or thousands of times per day. Given that level of usage, how often should they be checked? How often does it actually happen?

[edit: the authors note that evaluating the fail-safe mechanisms are beyond the scope of the report; which, I think, is weird for a safety evaluation. But that's different from addressing issues of maintenance.]

The Transportation Security Administration announced Friday that it would retest every full-body X-ray scanner that emits ionizing radiation — 247 machines at 38 airports — after maintenance records on some of the devices showed radiation levels 10 times higher than expected.

The TSA says that the records reflect math mistakes and that all the machines are safe. ...

Rapiscan Systems said in a Dec. 15 letter to the TSA that company engineers who tested the backscatter machines were confused by inspection forms and instructions, leading them to make mistakes on the forms that vastly inflated the radiation emitted by the machines.

Rapiscan vowed to redesign its inspection forms and retrain its engineers.

The TSA released inspection reports from 40 backscatter machines, and reports for 19 of those machines had errors, including six that were deemed "considerable."

So they were off by an order of magnitude and didn't know that these numbers were implausible before submitting the forms. I'm sure they do a great job maintaining these machines, being such experts!

Spending all the time in "communities" is strong pressure to conform with the norm and encouraged upon by religions and governments. If you take time alone you may develop independent thinking and that's dangerous.No wonder atheists, who have developed enough independent thinking to question religions, have less "friends". Some of them don't do social networking at all, as they recognize it as a waste of time

In my experience, I also find that religious people are more likely to draw inspiration from religious figures or quotes (e.g. a daily bible verse) than are atheists to draw similar inspiration from other atheists. That may seem obvious, but would immediately confound those findings. It wouldn't cross my mind to follow Dawkins on Twitter, for example... I like him in small doses, but I suspect for most non-militant atheists, not believing in a deity isn't part of their identity any more than what grocery store they primarily shop at.

Christians ended up using terms that suggested an intuitive thinking style and a focus on community; they were also generally happier. In contrast, atheists tended to be more analytic and less focused on social connections. This latter bit is important, as having social connections tends to keep people happier, and the authors think religion can help provide those connections.

I think that this could be re-written as "If Christians are happier than aetheists it is as a result of their religions' social structure, rather than a direct result of their Christianity."

Having watched a debate between Dawkins and the Chief Rabbi of the UK fairly recently this was a point Dawkins seemed to realise, and as others above have noted if aetheists had the same govenment funding as religions they might have a similar level of social interaction - though as also noted aetheists are a bit more 'Asperger-y' - so maybe not. You can of course go to meetings of your local Secular Society or Humanist Society (do they exist in the US?) - or simply join the local science / astronomy / physics club etc and put up with any lost god-botherers - but you're probably too busy posting on Ars - after all, someone on the Internet is wrong!..

The famous religious people around here are usually arrested for fraud against others in their church.

Of course, they became a member, included their spouse, did all the social activities, befriended everyone they could, the priest or minister, before pitching the financial fraud.

Seems they like to steal money and smile when they do it.

Most of my family is religious, but only one is annoying. She won't shut up about "Jesus this and that" - well, until I explained that I love lobster, but didn't talk about it all the time. For 10 yrs, she tried out different religions, until she finally came back to the family one. She's on her 3rd husband now. Religion seems to be working for her.

The article is typically vague, as most statements are especially when the research is so new:

My personal opinion: Given the exposure numbers are so low (in comparison to the dosages used for medical imaging), the effect of these is most likely quite negligible. However, given that there are other options which do not use ionizing radiation such as millimeter wave, I'm a little baffled at why the use of x-rays was an option to begin with, considering all the scrutiny that is involved with their use in my profession...

This argument is a terrible one: "Turns out they were fine all along, and you probably got a higher dose of radiation while waiting in line for security than you did during the scan itself."

Extra radiation is bad, and increases the likelihood of damage, even if that increase is minute.

"Fine amount of X-rays" is an oxymoron.

Well, it's not so black and white. There's plenty of debate about modelling low-level radiation dosages and their effects. There isn't much concrete evidence about the behavior of radiation dosages on the order of nanosieverts.

"In contrast, atheists tended to be more analytic and less focused on social connections. This latter bit is important, as having social connections tends to keep people happier, and the authors think religion can help provide those connections."

Yes, those anti-social, anti-community atheists. You don't see any atheist churches or community centers scattered around, even in areas with lots of atheists. It must be their fault. The lack couldn't possibly have anything to do with being excluded from the effective government subsidy for religious institutions (i.e. tax exemption). Not having to pay property taxes has NOTHING to do with helping keep all those church doors open to provide "community" for believers.

/S

If a group of atheists wants to form a nonprofit organization, they can do so. For example, American Atheists is a 501(c)(3) organization. (http://www.atheists.org/donate/tax-information). Nothing stops them from buying land in your community, organizing weekly (or whatever) social events and having the whole enterprise exempted from taxes.

The reason they don't do it is that it's apparently not a priority for them.

In contrast, religion is mostly about the social interaction. Go to church, go to the socials, go to the prayer meetings, sing together. Go to the wedding, the funerals, etc. It attracts people who are looking for social interaction so it's not at all surprising to find a lot of people there who are oriented toward lots of socializing. In fact, I have always thought that a large percentage, perhaps a majority of church, synagogue, temple an mosque attendees, are there ONLY for the socializing and have not much interest in the religious beliefs or practices.

The article is typically vague, as most statements are especially when the research is so new:

My personal opinion: Given the exposure numbers are so low (in comparison to the dosages used for medical imaging), the effect of these is most likely quite negligible. However, given that there are other options which do not use ionizing radiation such as millimeter wave, I'm a little baffled at why the use of x-rays was an option to begin with, considering all the scrutiny that is involved with their use in my profession...